Saturday, December 31, 2016

... updating Hovind on C14


... updating Hovind on C14 · ... updating Kent Hovind on C14, part 2

Carbon Dating Flaws
Truth In Genesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVuVYnHRuig


After seing first half of video.

1:07 did they say in 1830 the Earth was billions of years old?

I thought they were staying in the range of 20 million up to c. 1900?

2:04 Carbon dating is actually used for things "so young" that geological column is irrelevant.

If a thing is dated by geologic column, like a ceratopsian fossil, routinely it is not carbon dated. When exceptioonally it is, you get surprising results, like a Triceratops horridus c. 40 000 - not 40 000 000 just 40 000 - years old.

2:53 Derek Ager is obviously speaking of radiocarbon dated things as being "really archaeology".

The radiometric datings related to "geologic column" is the wordthless K-Ar method, mainly, which was proven worthless at Mt St Helens.

4:21

If now 21 pounds of C 14 each year is produced, in order to account for the rise back when history started, it must have been 420 pounds in the year of the Flood (that is 20 times more than now in a year) with the speed declining, and probably stabilising around the time of Cyrus or of taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.

I am now speaking of a Flood in 2957 BC. If it was 2400 BC, you would need to have somewhat more carbon 14 than 420 pounds produced in the year of the Flood, to account for present level being stable last 2000 - 2500 years, unless you have a steeper rise for longer, which means some history is radically shorter.

I see an Exodus in 1510 BC carbon datable to 1700 BC - you might need to have it carbon datable to 2000 BC or 2400 BC (Pepi I or II).

420 pounds instead of 21 pounds means 20 times as much radiation, which gives a level of cosmic radiation close to total background radiation at Princeton.

12:31 "it would take 30 000 years to reach equilibrium"

Well, that means they were talking of only 21 pounds a year.

Somehow, since we have been in equilibrium last two millennia, unless history is falsified in chronology, we already have equilibrium, and if 30 000 years would be the time required with 21 pounds a year, and if 21 pounds a year is what we have now, well, since Earth is NOT 30 000 years old, it started rising (after Flood) at a level of roughly 420 pounds C14 added to atmosphere each year. Add some, if you assume KJV rather than LXX chronology!

Radiocarbon is still forming 28%-37% faster than it is decaying?

The source you give* is not a study of how it forms and decays now, but an attempt of explaining a discrepancy in North American Human Skeletons.

One which does not take into account perhaps that last tw thousand years we have a well dated history where carbon 14 datings match history rather well.

* R. E. Taylor et al., "Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry," American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1 1985 pp. 136-140.

13:18 "you'd have to know when it lived so you could calculate when it lived"

We know when Tiberius lived (most of us assume), and some of the coins with his image has datable blood, sweat, tears from when it was used - matching carbon dates with history. And therefore also validating a carbon dating of 78.511% of modern carbon as implying 2000 years (unlike exceptional circumstances, like shellfish from polar regions or generally shell fish).

13:43.

Half the carbon of today's atmosphere left ... half original would mean 5730 years ago. If original was 84.421% modern carbon, it would only mean 3/4 of that time (84.421% to the power of 4 is 50%, roughly). If it was instead 70.711% modern carbon*, it was alive half a halflife ago.

For a thing having half modern carbon, I think history (including Biblical) make 3/4 of a hlf life from originally 84.421% modern carbon a more reasonable guess. By 2865 years ago, carbon would be more evenly rising if not yet quite stable.

14:57 "how much was in it when it lived"

Well, it seems that carbon level in the year of the Flood and just previous was around 3% of present level - since consistently carbon datings from Flood fossils give 20 000 to 50 000 years ago.

That means it rose from c. 3% in say 2957 BC to c. 100% in c. 500 BC (when carbon dates can be well verified by history).

This is why starting with 420 pounds a year and levelling out to 21 pounds as per present rate is the good option.

If Flood was only 2400 BC, you need either a higher initial addition rate than 420 pounds per year, or a faster and steeper rise - which might make for conflict with historically well dated archaeology.

15:36 No, the initial level as per pre-Flood C14 is lower than 25% of present level. Much lower.

Otherwise, a Triceratops horridus from Flood would date to 11 450 BP or 9450 BC.

It dates to 40 000 BP. So Carbon level was lots lower than 25% modern carbon.

* All relations % modern carbon 14 to age, HT: https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

On Bergoglio in Lund back a month ago (two videos)


BURIAL OF PROTESTANTISM BY POPE FRANCIS AND LUTHERANS
REVEALED TRUTH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yom1mBr1PBw


0:37 You are not familiar with Sweden, are you?

The Swedish Church is not burying Protestantism, it is only burying all remains of Christianity within their Protestantism.

Protestantism is not one doctrine, in fact Western Atheism is one of the Protestant doctrines, historically - BUT the Swedish Church is about as far from Catholicism and Bible Truth as you can get.

[I have not heard the video further, I have no sound on the library and in this cyber I am also on a post with no headphones.]

See also:

The Lutheran Pope: Ecu-Maniacs in Sweden
TheRemnantvideo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv7LmtI78E4


[Not yet seen.]

One can add, to both videos, that there is a faction of Swedish Lutherans who are fairly pro-Catholic, like the Puseyites among Anglicans.

But they are organised in non-communion with the female "clergy" which "Pope" Bergoglio visited.

I was sympathising with them, while "practising" in a "normal" Swedish Church parish, up to when they announced they were getting female clergy.

But the guys who Bergoglio visited were not the "Swedo-Catholics" of Free Synod or Laurentii Trust./HGL

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

... on Barry Cunliffe's St Patrick Day's Lecture on Celts


Barry Cunliffe: Who Were the Celts?
BYU Department of Anthropology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8FM9nMFbfI&t=3986s


Up to 1:06:26, that is before the Q/A session, after that I have not yet watched it. Yet.

Re intro,
wonder what Barry Cunliffe would think of this, here:

HGL's F.B. writings : Discussion of Celtic Inis (Welsh Ynys) with Latin Insula, perhaps Greek Nesos
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2016/11/discussion-of-celtic-inis-welsh-ynys.html


22:48
Ravens being "Celtic Walkyries" might add weight to the Gaulish Druid theory of Odin's identity?

Just before 38:28
"they pass the wine as through a sieve".

I am reminded to Sigmund's words to his son Sinfjotle about the poison ... were there "poisons" which could be eliminated that way?

45:41
This argument on glossochronology, you should be less sure of.

Someone did a similar thing with IndoEuropean and Russian emerged VERY late in that model (they refrained from calibrating the program by inserting known dates).

52:54
The great megalithic tombs ...

4500 BC
3500 BC

According to my Fibonacci modelling of C14 rise, this looks like this:

2420 av. J.-Chr. 76,66562 % + 2200 ans, 4620 av. J.-Chr.
2241 av. J.-Chr. 86,26541 % + 1200 ans, 3441 av. J.-Chr.

New blog on the kid : Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html


So, 2420 BC to 2241 BC is the period you are talking about, and I wonder, does that affect your model significantly?

57:25
You mentioned 6000 BC.

Here is my recalibration for c. 6500:

2599 av. J.-Chr. 62,75068 % + 3850 ans, 6449 av. J.-Chr.

(same link)

Friday, November 25, 2016

... on Wiki (For Morons or Not Only?) (Featuring JPHolding)


Thread:
Theologyweb : TektonTV Thread
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?245-TektonTV-Thread/


On Theologyweb, the forum Tektonics is only accessible if you log in.

09-30-2014, 09:40 AM #270
ukchristian28
Hi J.P. Something for you to possibly get your teeth into. Someone posted this in the Unbelievable Facebook group. Apparently, someone has now done some thorough research and has concluded that Jesus never existed:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1504964/jesus-never-existed/

09-30-2014, 03:38 PM #271
jpholding
Nah, that's just the same old "Remsberg's List" argument I've already debunked. Maybe with some names added of people whose works are lost to us. I'll have a somewhat updated response to those ideas in the next e-book.

Yesterday, 04:17 PM #681*
hansgeorg
As I didn't have access to original Remsberg list, I refuted the updated version. With lots of wiki quotes they will hardly deny.

Today, 04:11 PM #682
Today, 04:13 PM #683
jpholding
Wiki quotes is for morons. Find the original source or shut your yap.

Wacko, get the hell out of this thread. I don't want you here wasting my time and that of others here with your insane fluff.

As originator of the thread, I am free and have the authority to order you out, and I hereby do so.**

Aftermath
I had been going to compliment JPHolding on his style of videos being influential, with these two examples:

Catholic Inquisition Myths Busted
vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ_xohxaLEo


"Pseudo-Traditionalism Is Free Falling"
TradCatKnight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_17gk1vMrOw


One has a title reminiscent of "Myth Buster", another uses toon material (Wile E. Coyote, gravity lessons on the still) to bring home the point of "free fall" in its title.

However, since all of page 68 were my responses* and I stopped after first on page 69 (I was born 68, not 69!**), I'll spare him my deplored company.

I wonder if he meant what I wrote "wiki quotes" - that is quotes from wikipedian articles - or what is better known as "wikiquotes". Either way, his criterium is calculated, whether he knows so or not, to make writing on internet a hobby only for those having more time and leisure and definitelymore money than I do.

Obviously, I disagree. Most of the time, copying a work was a rather long chore and therefore much of the things we know are known via authors whose works function a bit like wiki articles, with earlier authors contributing, but these lost, and themselves then final (sometimes vandalising) redactors of a wiki. Except, this freedom (and its abuse) existed between works, not in copying of each.

Notes
* ##671-680 were also mine.

** I amenned the second post, the one not derogatory of wiki, but remininding of his freedoms.

Appendix
where I adressed versions of Remsberg list:

somewhere else : 1st C Historians, Wikipedia Category
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/04/1st-c-historians-wikipedia-category.html


And at least one or two more in same series (links within).

somewhere else : Silent Historians Argument Revisited :

1) Ten Extra-Biblical Writers or Sources on Reign of Tiberius
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2016/04/ten-extra-biblical-writers-or-sources.html


2) Two of These Quoted
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2016/04/two-of-these-quoted-silent-historians.html

Monday, November 21, 2016

... against Federal Ban on Fireplaces


Without watching first.

Will watch later:

Video to watch
Why Feds Are Banning Fireplaces And Wood Stoves
The Alex Jones Channel
Ajoutée le / added on the 19 nov. 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m25OsRVc7e0


This means my own comment is not the best of the combox pick, as yet, but not totally bad either, I hope:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Are FEDS banning them?

Nancy M
A woodburning stove saved my parents lives a couple years ago in Oregon... they had a blizzard and couldn't get out of their 40 acre home and the power was off for almost a week... fortunately my dad was well stocked on wood and kept the place warm... The are in their 80's...

Ohsaint p
That's why we voted Trump. To end all these rats from doing whatever they want.

Teresa Smith
Will you please make sure Trump is aware of this stupidity? I live in a area where the power goes out alot due to weather, snow making limbs fall. We have to have a alternative source of heat.

Kathy Florcruz
YOU make sure Trump knows. He works for us. Alex is doing his job of making you aware.

wolf shedler
We burn wood summer and winter We have gotten rid of all our propane appliances and its like a burden has been lifted. We have a 100 acres mostly wooded and our fuel grown on trees. We make our own electricity and grow our own food. We brew our own beer and still use on outside rootcellar. A bad batch of beer is distilled at home using a woodstove. We use a woodstove in our gazebo for cooking in the summertime or a solar powered hotplate. Life is good and i would never trade my freedom for all those city comforts that come at a huge price. Thanks Alex we watch you on our solar powered laptop

BlueRoseRocketBand
I said it before and all through this election this is a clash between rural and urban. I have said cities are prisons without bars. So I chose long ago to live outside the Maze . I now live semi-off grid. My total utilities a month are $20 at my place outside of a small country town. My place has a few acres and old growth forest. All the firewood I need Ginseng, sassarfras, blackberry,plums, produce, game and eggs too. My best old friend, Max, my German shepherd. Built my own bucksaw from pine. Get firewood with an old crosscut saw and axe. Brew my own dark beer and blackberry wine or whatever .Built my own cistrens and solar panels. I read alot,write, play guitar and listen to radio and cassettes. Most would say I'm below the poverty level. Hell I lived on about $155 a month for a few years till I got my SS. I was strong as an ox. Now its about $500. Still poverty level I suppose. And yet I'm doing fine. Wish my family stayed with me but you know the name of that tune. Anyhow, when I make bistcuts in, and brew coffee on my woodstove while sitting next to the open fire I feel like I'm the wealthiest man on earth . Oh, not of coin, but of living simply free of all the clutter that fogs mans quest to find the salt at his core, and once found, to take that sweet deep breath of Freedom. Tread thee Not!

Zero Quanta
Alex is RIGHT ON with this one. I have been noticing that the Regulations for Fire places have gotten RIDICULOUS. They do NOT want you to have a wood stove. Fist up, Fight for Truth.

Tens of DU
FACT: One year of volcanic activity on Earth produces more CO2 than all of human history combined.

Trolling4muniez
source ? like thats a megapunch argument if i can get source

Katerina B
Here in Switzerland some people heat their giant homes by burning wood :/

Obvious Lee
They respect a man's privacy there. Particularly if he has a fortune.

riphaven
Yes, but you didn't have a black liberal socialist president, so be happy and eat your chocolate. :)


The fact is, the craze about carbon dioxide started to corrupt environmentalism from a book by Ichtiaque Rasool.

And possibly from back up studies, but more probably from sloppy readers, who didn't note that he never proved or claimed to prove that Carbon Dioxide is a real climate bandit.

Here is my older study of that book, read on a homeless shelter with too much come and go during the night for me to sleep:

deretour : Ichtiaque Rasool, Système Terre - "pas terrible ..."
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/ichtiaque-rasool-systeme-terre-pas.html

Sunday, November 13, 2016

... or rather remarks on vaticancatholic's video on KJV-Onlyism


Video commented on:
Is the King James Bible Infallible?
vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUTlvAsLyPM


0:42
Just for the record, my online English Bible is DRB. And if I get hold of Father Ronald Knox, I'll take a look at that too, it has pre-Vatican II imprimatur, I think.

But SOME guys associate me with KJ-onlyists because I am generally a Biblical inerrantist - especially YEC and Geocentric.

My Biblical chronology is also LXX via St Jerome and Roman Martyrology for 25 of December. Christ born 5199 anno Mundi.

4:53
As a revert from Orthodox to Catholic, I note that some Catholic arguments for Papacy have similar problems.

  • a) Peter's office must have remained THEREFORE it is the Roman Pontiff who uniquely holds it;
  • b) Peter episcopated effectively in Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome, THEREFORE it is the Roman Pontiff who is unique successor of St Peter.


Note, for Jerusalem, St James the Brother of God counts as first bishop bearing that title, but before he was such, Peter and the Apostles were ruling which means (if St Peter was superior to them) that St Peter was in fact episcopating from Pentecost Day or even before up to when he left Jerusalem for Antioch.

For point one, or a), I have reverted as judging by the fruits, unable to dissolve the conundrum on my own, just theologically, for the second point or b) above, well, he died in Rome, so Rome was the final of the three places where he episcopated.

KJV-onlyists would similarily argue that of the three English authorised versions, The Great Bible and The Bishops' Bible were superseded with finality by King James' Bible.

They even would have had an argument, if English had historically been a very large language early on - as it is, it was small up to American colonies, and still very small up to 18th Century, when it was heading the apostasy in certain ways. And now with internet, we have no trouble getting DRB.

6:52
KJV-Onlyists would hardly argue that King James was inspired.

They would argue that he was providential, as providential an instrument as Orthodox argue for Emperor Constantine (here a Baptist would be really illogical for another reason : this "Protestant Constantine" was in fact burning Baptists on the stake according to the Parliamentary law De comburendis hereticis, 1401, originally directed at Lollards, misapplied via the bishop of Beauvais to St Joan of Arc).

8:24
ASCII Code for King James:

KINGJAMES
777776768
538145793

777777 = 42*10
668 = 20*10

5 3 08 01 04 05 07 09 03
5 8 16 17 21 26 33 42 45

620+45 = 665.

HOLYBIBLE (but not Heilige Bibel, heliga Bibeln, Sagrada Scriptura etc) has 666.

Obviously some are making Bible reading a substitute for the Eucharist and are therefore making, precisely among English speaking Bible readers, the Bible a kind of idol.

That much you are right in.

15:12
[Where they spoke of non-copyrighted KJV as contradicted by longstanding Royal Privilege for certain printers in England:]

And in Sweden the printing press for the first Lutheran tracts was stolen by royal confiscation from the Carthusians. They had printed a tract about the Holy Rosary first.

Obviously, Reformation monarchs were not into the free press.

23:46
One Orthodox argument which once appealed to me was "Papism was the first Protestantism" - I don't believe that any longer, but it takes some detailed knowledge of Russian and other heresies to know Orthodox countries were not immune to heresies.

Protestants have at least not been skoptsy.

29:55
Speaking of King James : he was very inconsistent about the Blessed Sacrament.

On the one hand, he forbade teaching transsubstantiation. On the other hand, he forbade not kneeling while receiving.

Could one consider his attitude as responding to the description some Protestants give of Catholicism?

31:40 or before.
A printer can as easily make a mistake as someone copying by hand. See the divergences between first two editions of 1611 - or the near-Bible work we are discussing. These versions were printed.

I'd say the original reading of each autograph is preserved, meaning or even word for word in at least ONE version extant today, not necessarily the same one. I place, for instance, LXX over Vulgate in age of Adam at birth of Seth, since that seems warranted by Roman Martyrology.

36:49
God promised to preserve His words - since these include the words He inspired hagiographers to write, the original meaning of each passage must have a correctly rendered version at least somewhere.

I wonder if there aren't canonists who are trying to explain with some sweat that Trent didn't define all the correct readings to be preserved in the Vulgate.

Final remark:
To return to the locus Apocalypse 16:5, it would seem the text of Beza would have been plausible if St John had been a Greek, having past, present and future as distinct tenses, while he was in fact a Hebrew, having past and non-past as distinct tenses and rendering non-past more generally as present than as future.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

... on the Honour Given the Blessed Virgin : Praising Her Blessed


Video commented on
The Virgin Mary | Protestant vs Catholic | Walter Martin vs Mitch Pacwa
Theology, Philosophy and Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV36Vv2crQc


I
7:14 "which means she was transformed into a new body"? Where does Walter Martin get that from? Of the four doctrines he challenges, two were accepted by early Protestant reformers, like Luther and Calvin and Cranmer : mother of God, everlasting Virgin.

8:59 Walter Martin, have you noted there is also some "parallels" or "parallelism" between Eve and Adam?

Through one man's sin ... how about "through one woman's sin"? Without Eve, Adam would not have sinned either.

10:17 "you are the honour of our people"

A military badge of honour for valiant women, previously extended to Judith:

Judith 15:10
And when she was come out to him, they all blessed her with one voice, saying: Thou art the glory of Jerusalem, thou art the joy of Israel, thou art the honour of our people:

II
8:59 Walter Martin, have you noted there is also some "parallels" or "parallelism" between Eve and Adam?

Through one man's sin ... how about "through one woman's sin"? Without Eve, Adam would not have sinned either.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
@ > Without Eve, Adam would not have sinned either.
Reply. OHhhhhhh The Power of a Woman. I'm sure Satan KNEW he could not persuade Adam to obey him, BUT! Satan KNEW Who COULD, & SATAN KNEW WHY TOO! 😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl
True enough.

And God replied in kind. He made Mary sinless so She could raise Him to devotion.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
You said, > "And God replied in kind. He made Mary sinless so She could raise Him to devotion."
Hans!!! Where is that written? What Book, or, where in, anything?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Genesis 3:15. I will set ENMITIES between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed.

Even if we leave out the dispute on translation of the second half of the verse, and keep to the first verse, Mary is sinless.

Christ is called "seed of the woman" as Son of Mary. God is speaking to Satan (or to a serpent no longer speaking, but still representing Satan who spoke through him). ENMITIES means complete enmity. And complete nemity with Satan means never sinning.

ALSO in Luke. Hail thee full of Grace.

Full of grace = no place for sin, in Her soul.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
@ > "Genesis 3:15. I will set ENMITIES between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed."
THAT WOMAN WAS Eve. Her seed was her children. Cain was the first child, Abel was the 2nd. Adam & Eve also had other children. Cain turned out to be the spiritual seed of Satan because he did the works of Satan.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Eve may have been an incomplete fulfilment, but the complete fulfilment of the words are in the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans-Georg-Lundahl,
Hans! What are Your thoughts about what is written in Luke 1:46-56? < verses 46 thru 56.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It includes a prophecy about the faithful : all generations shall call Her blessed.

It is also (up to verse 55) a set Catholic prayer, called the Magnificat.

Check Latin text for those verses, and you'll know the liturgic text. And add Gloria after it.

Gospel According to Saint Luke : Chapter 1
http://drbo.org/drl/chapter/49001.htm


Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl,
Hans. What is your understanding of what the word, "blessed"? What does the word "blessed" mean? Different people have different opinions on/about what it means. What is yours?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
One of the things is "She is in Heaven".

Another is "She was blessed already on Earth".

A question for you : what do YOU mean by "praise her blessed"?

We Catholics use the words of the angel combined with those of the cousin Elisabeth and some additions for praising Her blessed.

What do YOU use for praising Her blessed?

The Orthodox have prayers similar to the Hail Mary, also restating the words of the angel and of Elisabeth.

What prayer of YOURS is regularly praising Her blessed?

One more.

Blessed as such refers to five women, Her and four in the Old Testament. Jael, Ruth, Abigail, Judith and the Blessed Virgin.

Blessed among womens to only three of them : Jael, Judith and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Jael earned it by killing Sisera. Judith earned it by killing Holophernes. Whom did the Blessed Virgin defeat or kill? Only one enemy of Israel comes to question : the old serpent, Satan. She had never laid unfriendly hands on any man. That is why her reaction to the angel's words was at first "what does he even mean". When Elisabeth says "blessed art thou maong women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb", THEN only does the Virgin understand she and her seed are meant. And that means a reference back to Genesis 3.

In other words, this proves she had already defeated Satan. In his dominion over mankind in general? Not quite, Christ still had to die. In his dominion over her? Totally, he never had any. God had placed ENMITIES between him and Her, that is total enmity, not a moment of his peacefully enjoying dominion over her.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
You asked, "A question for you : what do YOU mean by "praise her blessed"?
I NEVER asked YOU THAT QUESTION! My question, WAS, what do You mean by, BLESSED? I asked You, WHAT is Your DEFINITION OF THE SINGLE WORD, BLESSED?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, and I replied by another question: what do YOU, Donald Bailey, mean by the full phrase "praise someone blessed".

I am praising the Blessed Virgin blessed every time that I pray Ave Maria which includes "benedicta tu in mulieribus" as both St Gabriel and St Elisabeth said. Greek Orthodox include such words in the prayer "Theotoke Parthene chaire". What time each day do YOU, Donald Bailey praise Her blessed as she foretold all generations (namely of the faithful) would do.

If you had been less eager to answer, you might also have seen that I gave a military definition of the phrase "blessed art thou among women" from the context of Jael and Judith. I answered that too. And there are only five women who are at all called blessed in the whole Bible - the other two being Ruth and Abigail. Ruth who, by marrying Obed became ancestress of King David and ultimately the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Abigail who pacified King David and averted him from shedding blood - as the Blessed Virgin has averted Her Son many times over from punishing the Christian people.

Actually, I had answered your question very shortly first, before giving you another one.

Do you imagine you are the only guy who has a right to quizz me, and I can't quizz you?

Donald Bailey
To: Hans-Georg Lundahl
You, HANS asked me, "A question for you : what do YOU mean by "praise her blessed"?
I NEVER asked YOU THAT QUESTION! My question, WAS, what do You mean by, BLESSED? I asked You, WHAT is Your DEFINITION OF THE SINGLE WORD, BLESSED?
How can you imagine I am so dense not to SEE that You, HANS, are playing mind games?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Playing mind games? What are YOU then doing all the day quizzing people about verses YOU think relevant?

III
10:17 "you are the honour of our people"

A military badge of honour for valiant women, previously extended to Judith:

Judith 15:10
And when she was come out to him, they all blessed her with one voice, saying: Thou art the glory of Jerusalem, thou art the joy of Israel, thou art the honour of our people:

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
Hey Hans!! Satan HAS HIS INSPIRED BIBLE BOOKS TOO! E.g. Judith.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No.

God has inspired Judith. (Both the woman and the book).

Donald Bailey
Hans-Georg Lundahl
@> "No. God has inspired Judith. (Both the woman and the book)."
Mr. Lundahl. There is a Bible Book called, Jude!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[Suppressed comment linking to Douay Rheims Bible Online, might it have been here? No, it is further down and not suppressed.]

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
Hey Hans! You did not answer my 2 questions!!! Are ya harelipped? 😊 😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl
+Donald Bailey
Actually, the question had been suppressed, by someone else.

Yehuda and Yehudith were as common names among Jews as "John" and "Jane" are among English speakers.

There was a man called Yehuda who become a disciple of Christ (another one too, but he was from Ischariot and not the author of the Epistle) and a woman called Yehudith who became a military heroine of the North Kingdom and therefore a prototype of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The book of Judith is her story.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
Thanh You for responding but your response did not answer my two questions. Once again, It is written in the Book of Jude, Chapter 1, verse 3, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." < Douay-Rheims Bible.
Mr. Lundahl. 2 questions here. Which came first, the Book of Judith, or, The Book of Jude?
2nd question. Is the faith once delivered to the saints, as written in the Book of Jude, the same faith as once delivered to the saints in the Book of, Judith?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The book of Judith came first, as part of the Old Testament.

And the faith is the same.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
@ > "The book of Judith came first, as part of the Old Testament. And the faith is the same."
Thank You Hans! What Chapter & verse would that be?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
What chapter and verse of what?

There are no chapter and verse in any Book of the Bible, even of the 66 you acknowledge or even of the 73 (including Judith) I acknowledge, which gives a list of all Bible books.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
Hans. I asked You, Is the faith once delivered to the saints, as written in the Book of Jude, the same faith as once delivered to the saints in the Book of, Judith?

You responded and said, > "the faith is the same."

Then, next, I asked You, > What Chapter & verse would that be?

What I meant was What Chapter & verse in the Book of Judith.

Anyway, since I am failing to get my point across, maybe You can answer this question. How can I find this Book of Judith? I want to read what is written in it. I want to see what is written about faith. When I say faith, I mean a faith system, e.g. The RCC is a Faith system.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Any Catholic Bible includes the Book of Judith.

Here is an English Catholic Bible, online:

Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes
http://drbo.org/index.htm


And in case you find it troublesome to look up the book of Judith among the 73 books, here is Judith chapter 1:

Book Of Judith : Chapter 1
http://drbo.org/chapter/18001.htm


Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl,
HEY!!! Thanks for the link!!! I just now downloaded it! I DID & DO use the Douay-Rheims Bible in/for the 66 Books of the Bible that I do have. BUT! There is not a Book of Judith in those 66 Books. I have the Book of Jude. BUT, NOW, thanks to You, I have Judith TOO!! Thanks again! Btw. Do you know a Poster, DancesWithBears??? I like her very much! She is Catholic. I love GOOD kind hearted people! I HATE REPROBATES!! AND, I MAKE NO BONES ABOUT LETTING THEM KNOW SO!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not know her.

Donald Bailey
To: Hans Georg Lundahl
@ >"I did not know her."
ok I'll rephrase my question. Have You ever read any of her messages?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If I had, I would not have said so, I would have at least known her in passing by that fact.

No, I haven't.

IV
Donald Bailey
Regarding the "Mother Mary"! This is ANOTHER Scripture all of You "Mother Mary" WORSHIPERS ACT LIKE YOU DON'T GET THE MEANING OF! Luke 8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and obey it. < CAPICHE? EASTER SUNRISE SUN WORSHIPERS!!! DO YOU K PEACH E?? NOoooooo! YOU REFUSE 2 SEE!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
My mother, my brethren and my sisters.

Believing and lively acting Christian men : brethren.

Believing and lively acting Christian women : sisters.

Who is left to be His mother, whom He mentioned first?

Well, in a backhanded way He said SHE was innocent of the occasion and She was more than other believers doing the will of the Father.

Misquote alert?
In Douay Rheims, I found "my mother and my brethren" and not the words "my sisters". This is however not how I recall the verse from memory. From Swedish. In case I should have remembered wrong, which I don't believe, the singular for "mother" makes the same point, and the other female believers are included in brethren. 

Monday, October 24, 2016

[belated title : Comments on Conspiracy Road Trip : Creationism]


Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism
Tr3Vel0cita
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju_lpqa6Ug


On the FIRST stop, I wrote no comment. That is because I had no idea how to explain Horse Shoe Bend myself. I took Tas Walker on CMI to help out, and here is THAT link:

CMI : Horse Shoe Bend, Arizona
Carved by the receding waters of Noah’s Flood
by Tas Walker, Published: 18 September 2012
http://creation.com/horse-shoe-bend-arizona


17:17 I know Jerry Coyne somewhat from his blog and he is certainly a COMMITTED secularist. When he claims the Creationists are committed and he is not, he lies.

Here is his blog:

Why Evolution is True
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/


Huge minus, he is evolutionist and fanatic enough to have banned my from commenting, huge plus, the Hili dialogues - a cat and sometimes a dog speaking Polish with translation. Here are three occasions when my arguing has involved him, which can be seen as a huge plus (from my p o v, since I enjoy arguing) or a huge minus (if you really hate what I write):



He's a pretty dedicated evolutionist.

18:13 Coyne says "morality does not come from God" (according to Evolution, but that is what he believes in as "science") and says it is hard for us to accept.

Well, claiming universally valid morality issued from evolution is a theoretical impossibility to him, and renouncing claims of morality being universally moral, at least it is hard to most evolutionists, not sure about him. See Wettstein's attitude:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... against Wettstein on Abortion and Sodomy, Chanaaneans and Old Age Pensions
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/09/against-wettstein-on-abortion-and.html


25:28 Wonder if Andrew Maxwell could as successfully get evolutionists to dig for Triassic straight below Jurassic or for Permian straight below Triassic in Karoo?

If these were different epochs, surely some place you would find a Permian layer below a Triassic one, palaeontologically speaking and not just by default geological labelling?

The professionals of Karoo seemed less than eager:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/06/contacting-karoo-about-superposition-of.html


26:26 Hypothesis on why not finding human fossils along dino ones.

  • A) Most basically. Where T Rexes or wild Brontosaurs abound, you don't settle if you have any sense. And since man lived to 900 years sometimes pre-Flood, by the time of the Flood (when fossils are mostly from) man and dino had separate habitats.

  • B) Some dinos are actually so little documented, that they theoretically also could be human/nephelim fossils. Here is my mirror for a page on the now lost site palaeocritti. I added own comments in square brackets or signalled as own:

    Palaeocritti Blog : Uberabatitan ribeiroi
    http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/12/uberabatitan-ribeiroi.html
    


He mentioned pterodactyls and condors. But solution is basically same there : different habitats.

26:59 To squish His creative power into a ... 6000 year [literal?] framework ... false point. It would be a true one, if creating a world or any number of worlds could in any way exhaust God's creative power - or if God was suff ering from an irrepressible itch to use it through "millions of years" before or after His creating time. But read a little St Thomas Aquinas! If God had been creating world after world, allowing each an infinite time, it would still not in any way exhaust His creativity. And the "outside" the finite creation, either locally or temporally, is not there to bother God - God is rather Himself outside as well as inside creation. Saint Juliana of Norwich had a vision of Christ as God the Creator. In that vision, He held all He had created in his hand, and it was not bigger than a nut (obviously in that vision compared to His human form). So, God's creative power is not squished into what He has chosen to actually create.

27:10 ... is to tarnish His glory? Er, no. Denying His truthfulness is tarnishing His glory, as far as we speak of His external glory among us.

[debate under these two, upcoming]

28:19, sth before. "But you interpret science whi chever way it fits" - Andrew Maxwell, are you treating science as an absolute we have to bow down to?

29:09 "the point of the show is for you" Oh, Andrew Maxwell sees fit to treat creationists as some half looney guys whom one should try to treat ... never mind the debate or all that! Well, I'd say it was easier for Coyne and Prothero and that other guy to play Andrew Maxwell's game than taking on Kent Hovind or Tas Walker or Woodmorappe in oral debate - or me in written one. Via internet.

31:43 Chimps can cry, but they don't have tears like us. They also have emotions, but cannot signal them by the eyes that well, since they have nearly no visible sclera. They have opposable thumbs, but apparently don't do crafts either. And if they are taught any kind of language to communicate with keepers, the least impressed with it are linguists who have a hunch of what grammar or a human language is.

And at age seven, the chimps is behaving i n a way which would get a seven year old boy spanked - or given psychiatric treatment. (31:54)

39:07 Phil suspected of being a bully by Andrew Maxwell? More like, he is (rather consciously) setting a standard of not being concessionist. Simply by not being so himself.

39:22 If A M or director is bullying or not depends very much on what we do not see. Some are more likely to complain than others.

39:30 Taking leadership over the group? Or receiving it? Two different things.

43:00 "I always thought Adam and Eve weren't meant to be taken literally" - and who the Hell gave you that impression, Andrew? I suppose you won't admit it was the serpent himself, so who?

By 47:00 looking back a bit. Something has been edited out. Oldest dated fossils from a valley in Ethiopia are NOT carbon dated. If you date anything to "4 million years ago", it is not by carbon 14. Can I guess that the valley in Ethiopia is called Olduvai? Here goes ... oh, sorry, it is Laetoli in Tanzania:

Creation vs. Evolution : Isn't There a Geological Column in Laetoli, and Aren't the Footprints Proof of Human Ancestors?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/10/isnt-there-geological-column-in-laetoli.html


52:03 Question in two parts : do the bacteria there have cell walls made by phospholipids? Are phospholipids likely to be produced without previous life in such exact places?

53:42 "that for hundreds of years scientists have concocted absolute nonsense, just so we can do as we please" I do not share Phil's analysis of motive on the level of every scientist. But those who are honest have been formed an an environment which is not. Check out Dawkins, Coyne, Salman Rushdie, AronRa and a few more like those. And of course P Z Myers. They do have a hatchet to grind with Christianity and with Christian morality. And some of them are natural scientists, of above all except Salman, as far as I know.

[comment debate under this one]

55:01 Abdul has been the voice of reason throughout ... no, we could never ever in a thousand years have guessed a Muslim would think of himself as that, could we?

55:07 And Abdul thinks Christianity didn't do too well? Well, who has been teaching him its history?

55:14 Islam absolutely unscathed? Yea, in this roadtrip. Unless being too conceited is a bit ... scathed.

55:52 Really pleased JoJo has taken a step to his position ... right. Was she honestly Young Earth Creationist at the start? Perhaps. "I don't want to be blinkered" Right, we have all heard, time after time, about Fundies being blinkered. I wonder if the five scientists would accept a similar roadtrip with Creation Scientists hosting - or if they are too blinkered.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

... 3 QQ on Evolution / Creation (Quora)


Q
What actual evidence is there of evolution, when the Bible says God made Creation in six days and then rested?

Answer A
by
Claudio Delise,
I have read the bible (OT and NT) cover to cover 2 and 1/2 times and more.

Quick example off the top of my head are Tuberculosis, Gonorrhea, and guess what Syphyllis.

In my lifetime TB has changed (evolved) to not respond to medicines that used to work in a 6 months of treatment.

Gonorrhea has changed (evolved) to be resistant to common (simple) antibiotics.

But most interesting: Syphilis was first introduced to Europe probably by Christopher Columbus travels.

Initially it was a more impressive than small pox. So it became colloquially known as the Great Pox. Now it has evolved to be milder and more indolent disease.

See Knell, RJ (7 May 2004). "Syphilis in renaissance Europe: rapid evolution of an introduced sexually transmitted disease?" (PDF). Proceedings. Biological sciences / the Royal Society. 271 Suppl 4 (Suppl 4): S174–6. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0131. PMC 1810019free to read. PMID 15252975.

When syphilis first appeared in Europe in 1495, it was an acute and extremely unpleasant disease. After only a few years it was less severe than it once was, and it changed over the next 50 years into a milder, chronic disease. The severe early symptoms may have been the result of the disease being introduced into a new host population without any resistance mechanisms, but the change in virulence is most likely to have happened because of selection favouring milder strains of the pathogen. The symptoms of the virulent early disease were both debilitating and obvious to potential sexual partners of the infected, and strains that caused less obvious or painful symptoms would have enjoyed a higher transmission rate.

(bold face added by me.) Notice that there were no antibiotics available to “interfere” with God’s plan for the disease.

Edit 9/17/16 this is a followup to a dialogue in comments section.

There are several sites that elaborate on topics of evolution, if you are really interested. These sites include a detailed explanation of of the evolution of the eye (a favorite counter-argument used for years by Creationists against evolution). You can also look up “humans have 46 chromosomes while other Apes have 48”. In particular check out human chromosome number 2. You will find a detailed analysis with a timeline a) First a prediction that would potentially falsify the hypothesis of common descent, followed by 2) detailed study followed by 3) confirmation of hypothesis.

A classic case of hypothesis, analysis, verification. This allows an hypothesis to begin a journey to a Theory (capital T) if there are many more verifications and no falsifications. One unequivocal proven falsification would be sufficient to turn evolution on its head and lots of biologists changing careers.

Oh, I forgot.

Your comment statement “genomic errors are by and large destructive,” is partially correct. Look up a gene (name escapes me) that controls the mammalian jaw. In humans it is defective but not in other apes. Result: A chimp can and sometimes does bite your face off. A human even if crazy cannot do it because muscles too weak.

This genetic “defect” resulted in larger and larger skulls in humans and and increase in brain size. So now humans can do math chimps not so much.

When I was an engineer I had on my dest a sign “ DCMWFMMIMUA” (don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up already). Did you by chance find my sign? (gentle humor). If you did not you can do a lot of easy reading and make your own mind.

My comment
“What actual evidence is there of evolution, when the Bible says God made Creation in six days and then rested?”

I take it the word evolution in above is not contrasted with an absolute fixity of species, but rather with special creation of for instance, man, ape, donkey, sheep, bird, bacterium, fish, insect separate from any other in this list.

That is NOT evidenced by bacteria adapting and changing.

[Yeah, I know, should have read the answer through, not just blurted off my response to beginning.]

Answer B
by
Habib Fanny,
Political Animal, Goofball, Heathen, Physician, and all around Nerd.

I’m scratching my head, here.

Not really sure what the argument is.

You couldn’t possibly be saying that because people with no scientific knowledge wrote their legends of creation in a book a few thousand years ago, that should invalidate what we have learned since then.

Because, I’m not sure if you’d noticed but there are a lot of things the writers of the Bibles didn’t know about:

  • computers
  • avocados
  • the germ theory of disease
  • airplanes
  • chocolate
  • AIDS
  • MRIs
  • Gunpowder
  • spaghetti!!!


Do you really mean to insinuate that we should consult the Bible before deciding whether these things are real?

My comment
It is possible most authors of the Bible were not familiar with below list, but I'll comment on it one by one.

"computers"
Actually, I think Hezekiel in the verse about "flying scroll" was shown sth about computer technology - some take this is robotics directed missiles, I might tend to think more of satellite communications (with deleting of accounts described as burning of house).

I also think St John on Patmos was shown about ASCII Code (and obviously the name or names of Antichrist and/or False Prophet in appropriate case and spacing) before writing verse 18 of chapter 13.

But suppose these hunches were wrong. Suppose all Bible book authors were ignorant of computers, which I don't think is the case, either way, there are NO Bible verses actually contradicting possibility of computers being made.

"avocados"
They are plants, right? Specifically fruit? Right? Well, if no Bible author (after Adam as part-of-book author and probably Noah too) ever knew of avocados, they knew of fruit and knew there were many kinds of them.

[part-of-book author - namely of certain parts of Genesis]

"the germ theory of disease"
I'd say that considering devils as guardian angels of bad bacteria functions rather well with considering them as guardian angels of flies. And Beelzebul is a title of the devil in the NT.

"airplanes"
What specific Bible verse positively excludes them?

"chocolate"
Extract of a certain plant, more specifically a fruit, see avocado, above.

"AIDS"
Bible authors however did know bad manners draw after them punishment of God.

"MRIs"
Don't know what they are.

"Gunpowder"
I'd probaly agree only known explosive in pre-Flood and early post-Flood times was Uranium, see Mahabharata and confer it with the real context in Genesis 6 about wickedness.

Probably Tower of Babel was meant as a rocket (of which only the top reaches space), but they were going to use propulsion by exploding Uranium, and God mercifully averted this, while ensuing technology loss helped to continue averting it, until other rocket fuels had been studied and are adopted at Cape Canaveral.

"spaghetti!!!"
Bible authors knew you could make both bread and beer with cereals, so being able to make spaghetti or other pasta should not come as a surprise.

By contrast,
Evolution over millions or billions of years are positively excluded by certain verses, about creation days having evenings and mornings, and earth being comparably old is positively excluded by the genealogies and other chronological stuff after Adam was created. See for instance Genesis V.

Two other QQ
Q
My mother is teaching my younger brother creationism. He's a smart kid, and it hurts to hear him learn something so incorrect. What should I do?

Descr.
He’s nine and learning Young Earth Creationism. My mother even has a timeline that goes from 4,000 BC to the modern era, wiping out most of ancient history and replacing it with the Old Testament mythology. Nobody deserves to learn something this bad.

My Answer
  • 1) Your mother believes creationism is true and has a right to teach it to children staying at home.
  • 2) If she doesn’t forbid it, you can of course offer him evolutionist stuff.


I don’t see any point in fretting over “a smart kid” becoming a creationist. Creationism is not exactly stupid.

Q
Is jurassic world satanic propaganda?

Descr
(not read bef. answering)

Jurassic World | creationsciencestudy
https://creationsciencestudy.wordpress.com/tag/jurassic-world/


Note: i know ist not, but this is a provocative question

My Answer
You mean the film?

I’d say it is more like stupid and ignorant propaganda, insofar as it portrays the Jurassic biotopes as having existed and gone partly extinct 145 million years ago.

“Satanic” I reserve for more depraved things.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

... on Dendrochronology, LXX Dates and My Own C14 Research


With CMI, I half appreciate, half polemise against certain points.

Tree ring dating (Creation Magazine LIVE! 5-21)
CMIcreationstation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAGNJDwXwa8


3:10 4700 sth? Predate Noah's Flood? Not according to LXX chronology, they don't!

2957 BC = Flood year, according to the Christmas proclamation (replaced in 1994 with non-Biblically based chronology things, which as a Trad I reject). St Jerome's Ussher-method chronology, but he did it on a LXX text.

Christ was born 5199 after "the beginning when God created Heaven and Earth" and 2957 "after the Flood of Noah". References to Abraham, Exodus and King David + to Rome and to Olympiads + "in the sixth age, when the world was at peace" ( = during the peace of Augustus).

So if we take LXX as more correct text, oldest living bristle cone pine is from AFTER flood even by conventional dendrochronology.

During commercial.

A thing in favour of LXX, not very decisive, but still.

If organic material from Flood dates to 20,000 to 50,000 years before present, that would be a medium of 35,000 years before present, which if Flood was 2957 BC (as per St Jerome's reading of LXX), means an extra of

35000
02957
32043

32,000 years which implies a C14 level of around ...

32000
11460 (two half lives)
20540
11460 (two more halflives)
09080
05730 (one halflife)
03350 (nearly another half life)

100 > 25 > 6.25 > 3.125 > somewhat more than 1.625 %. Of C14 content compared to present stable level.

I actually counted a few percent more at flood than that. If you think Flood was more recent, you need to add more years that are there for original low C14 content and lower the percentage further.

Then even if the Flood is as far past as 2016+2957 years ago, you need to get the rise in C14 by additions faster than those of the present near stable additions. In medium about 3 times faster to reach stable level at around 500 BC.

Then you need the graph to curve so as to smooth out to horizontal at 2500 years ago. This means it must have been steeper before.

THAT in turn would be even steeper again if Flood was more recent.

So, by my LXX calculation, I get a milliSieverts per year of over 7 of just cosmic radiation at time of Flood. That is higher than total background radiation at Princetown, which has one of the higher in the world.

Meaning, your milliSieverts at Flood would have to be even higher than that. Which would have been unhealthy.

20:16 "another time zone" - a solution reminiscent of yours to Distant starlight paradox ... thank you!

Obviously, since I am geocentric and believe stars are one light day away, that is not a paradox for me. (Two light days might work too).

27:46 I'd like you to have also adressed the overlap of tree ring series and how matches are erratic.

I saw examples of that (or one example with a "bottleneck" in European series, one about 2000 years ago), but lost the reference.

The graphs showed very erratic overlap of ring thickness, so that matches can be considered as far from certain.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

... continuing with Shane Wilson : very short overview of Dating Methods + Flaws


1) ... to League of Nerds and Realistic Opportunist on Hovind (part 1) · 2) ... continuing a Real Oldie For you! · 3) ... continuing with Shane Wilson : very short overview of Dating Methods + Flaws

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
N a m e l y ...?

The fact that we can accuratley measure the distance of stars to far more than 6000 light years away. This means that it would take more time for the light to get her than you think the universe has been around.

Radiometric dating methods.

Dendrochronology

Using the elements that the sun is composed to to test the age.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The fact that we can accuratley measure the distance of stars to far more than 6000 light years away. This means that it would take more time for the light to get her than you think the universe has been around."

If I say (just as a hypothesis) that all the fixed stars and exoplanets are in a sphere of fixed stars one light day above us (one light day above centre of Earth or one light day above surface of Earth, whichever) and the distances "4 light years", "6000 light years" and "13.5 billion light years" simply don't exist in the universe, how would you try to refute that?

"Radiometric dating methods."

  • 1) Shorter halflives than C14 with (Cambridge half life rather than Libby's) 5730 years are irrelevant. You don't test the age of the earth with smoke detectors.

    • 2) C14 is non-conclusive, since a remainder of C14 in an object of organic material of 12.5% can be explained two ways :

    • a) you would say it lived in an athmosphere having about 100% of the present level of C14 and has thus halved its C14 content about three entire times, is about three half lives old;

    • b) I would counter (and do counter) that if it lived in an athmosphere with 21% of present level, the remaining 12.5% of present level are actually just a full 59% of original C14 content, 3/4 of a halflife, well after Biblical Flood (LXX chronology), and so on for any other possible level of C14 which will still square with Biblical timeline and other undisputable facts.


  • 3) Longer half lives than C14 cannot be tested by calibration against known historic dates (91% of C14 can be tested against objects historically dated to 730 or fewer years ago), and so the half lives are conjectures, and on top of that you have a conjecture that the content of daughter element of your sample (Lead with U-Pb, Th-Pb, U-Th-Pb of Zircons; Argon with Ka-Ar) comes only or with determinable exceptions from radioactive parent element, assumptions that cannot be tested, except in the case of Ka-Ar, where Mount Saint Helen's gave a VERY negative test for accuracy.


"Dendrochronology"

Used to impress me when I was a teen. I even considered pushing in some Silmarillion like scenario into some kind of gap theory (theory of times gap between two first verses of Genesis) in order to accomodate with the extra years before Adamic genealogies start.

No more so.

I actually took the trouble to look up - and typically me forgot the reference or mislaid it by self mailing to a mail account which went down or by a short link I forgot or which went down - and saw that European pine ring datings have a few bottlenecks. The reference I did find (and mislay!) showed a diagramme of how close the overlap between rings actually was.

After seeing that one, I am very positive dendrochronologists accept too loose fittings of patterns for dendrochronology to be really useful.

Most items "dated by dendrochronology" also typically use series where dendro gives only relative dates within series, while series as a whole is "placed" by C14 (see above).

"Using the elements that the sun is composed to to test the age."

In other words, assuming a certain process gave rise to the elements of the Sun OTHER than God creating it in its present shape or very close. In other words, this method suffers logically from an assumption of naturalism. A k a "atheistic methodology".
Very Late Update
Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
If I say (just as a hypothesis) that all the fixed stars and exoplanets are in a sphere of fixed stars one light day above us (one light day above centre of Earth or one light day above surface of Earth, whichever) and the distances "4 light years", "6000 light years" and "13.5 billion light years" simply don't exist in the universe, how would you try to refute that?

They aren't fixed though. They move. We can track their movement.

1) Shorter halflives than C14 with (Cambridge half life rather than Libby's) 5730 years are irrelevant. You don't test the age of the earth with smoke detectors.

The other methods are much longer than C14

*2) C14 is non-conclusive, since a remainder of C14 in an object of organic material of 12.5% can be explained two ways :
a) you would say it lived in an athmosphere having about 100% of the present level of C14 and has thus halved its C14 content about three entire times, is about three half lives old; b) I would counter (and do counter) that if it lived in an athmosphere with 21% of present level, the remaining 12.5% of present level are actually just a full 59% of original C14 content, 3/4 of a halflife, well after Biblical Flood (LXX chronology), and so on for any other possible level of C14 which will still square with Biblical timeline and other undisputable facts.*


Except we can actually do ice core dating, and use other methods which we can use to calibrate the levels of C14 in the atmosphere throughout the centuries.

3) Longer half lives than C14 cannot be tested by calibration against known historic dates (91% of C14 can be tested against objects historically dated to 730 or fewer years ago), and so the half lives are conjectures, and on top of that you have a conjecture that the content of daughter element of your sample (Lead with U-Pb, Th-Pb, U-Th-Pb of Zircons; Argon with Ka-Ar) comes only or with determinable exceptions from radioactive parent element, assumptions that cannot be tested, except in the case of Ka-Ar, where Mount Saint Helen's gave a VERY negative test for accuracy.

No, because we can cross date them with other decay rates and conclude and get the same age. As far as the Mount Saint Helen's test, it wasn't pure samples. Hell, the samples tested were tested likely knowing that they would be bad.

In other words, assuming a certain process gave rise to the elements of the Sun OTHER than God creating it in its present shape or very close. In other words, this method suffers logically from an assumption of naturalism. A k a "atheistic methodology".

This isn't an assumption, we know how elements are made. Hell, we have even had successful fusion tests on earth.

But you know what, you want to be willfully ignorant, then by willfully ignorant, I'm tired of dealing with morons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
« They aren't fixed though. They move. We can track their movement. »

Right. Go for the detail which is a manner of speaking and which is least relevant for my argument.

Except for one detail : heliocentrism would have been far better proven if they HAD been fixed onto a perfectly solid shell.

« The other methods are much longer than C14 »

As you may have noticed later, I was doing an enumeration. I was coming to them.

[She could also have concluded it from fact of my putting a numeral 1 before.]

« Except we can actually do ice core dating, and use other methods which we can use to calibrate the levels of C14 in the atmosphere throughout the centuries. »

For centuries back to 500 BC where the historical narratives and styles of artefacts and geographical coordinates are the method, granted. For ice core dates, not granted.

« No, because we can cross date them with other decay rates and conclude and get the same age. »

And quietly discard the results that don't match ?

« As far as the Mount Saint Helen's test, it wasn't pure samples. Hell, the samples tested were tested likely knowing that they would be bad. »

Is that your latest ? Actually, it is one we used to do about the Shroud of Turin – and me too, until finding out that there the computer giving the results could have been hacked.

« This isn't an assumption, we know how elements are made. Hell, we have even had successful fusion tests on earth. »

Tests which presumably did not take millions of years ? And you are STILL assuming that God needed to go through same process, or simply denying His existence, when using this argument. That remains an assumption. The one I was talking about.

« But you know what, you want to be willfully ignorant, then by willfully ignorant, I'm tired of dealing with morons. »

OK, creationism is « wilful ignorance » and « being a moron ». Debating climate has gone sharply downhill, hasn't it ?

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

... continuing a Real Oldie For you!


1) ... to League of Nerds and Realistic Opportunist on Hovind (part 1) · 2) ... continuing a Real Oldie For you! · 3) ... continuing with Shane Wilson : very short overview of Dating Methods + Flaws

Hans-Georg Lundahl
13 déc. 2013
+realisticoppurtunist Ah, you were around testing it five thousand years ago?

Seriously, I gave two or three different suggestions:

  • 1) God made the telomeres simply shorter - less telomerase as to quantity - for the starting point

  • 2) God changed its susceptibility to the shortening processes: shortening is in principle the same before Flood and now, but concretely simply faster now than then

  • 3) God added to the shortening processes or detacted from such as delay shortening, like more X-rays and less O2 / Nitrogen and less air pressure.


God does not need any of these things to be "divine mechanisms" to be able to do that. The basic law of nature is "creature cannot oppose its Creator". Or in other words "I believe in God Father ALMIGHTY" etc.

realisticoppurtunist
  • 1) What? "Well, the rascals are misbehaving, better lop off some DNA"

  • 2) How? That would mean changing the laws of chemistry. Which would be lethal to every living thing.

  • 3) This one makes no sense at all. How would increased atmospheric O2 have any effect on telomere deletion? Or Nitrogen? Or air pressure? More X-Rays? Coming from where?


Oh, and you said "Ah, you were around testing it five thousand years ago?"

That isn't relevant. There is no evidence whatsoever that it changed, and not even a chemical change in DNA Polymerase would make the problem better or worse. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1) Basically yes, except I would be more precise than "DNA" namely "telomerase".

  • 2) I would say God could do that without changing the laws of chemistry and without any change of such - supposing there were it - being lethal. Not just omnipotent, but omniscient and all wise too.

  • 3)
    • a) As I said, telomere's delete due to some diverse factors, and O2 levels might be combatting one of them. Which N (is it N2?) does not do that.

    • b) Also worse exposure to X-rays seems to have an effect, which was one case for the Hovind theory about the water canopy. You see the species that live the longest are those least likely to absorb X-rays. Trees, turtles, elephants, shellfish.

      Coming from where - on Hovind's theory from same place it always came from, cosmic radiation, but reaching earth more after water canopy is gone, on my view from stars obedient to God putting out some more of it.

      That would also fit well with C14 buildup starting mainly after the Flood.
    


"There is no evidence whatsoever that it changed"

If human life span changed from the reach between well above fivehundred and nearly one thousand to a reach between 60 and 120, obviously something changed.

If science means contradicting and ignoring no true data, that is not anything a Christian can honestly get around and just ignore.

"There is no evidence whatsoever that it changed"

If human life span changed from the reach between well above fivehundred and nearly one thousand to a reach between 60 and 120, obviously something changed.

If science means contradicting and ignoring no true data, that is not anything a Christian can honestly get around and just ignore.

realisticoppurtunist
[answering this last point]

Hmm... maybe because nobody lived to be over 500. The only evidence you have for that is cryptic bible passages that you infer timeframes from. There is NO valid evidence that people ever lived that long at any point in time. 

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The Bible is valid evidence for that, since it is true History.

It is validated as true History insofar as it is the word of God. It is validated as the word of God because accepted so by the Catholic CHurch since its beginning. And the Catholic Church is - like its Hebrew predecessor, Israel, then Judah - validated by the miracles that have followed it. And of course by its Divine founder Jesus Christ and His Resurrection. A Christian has no option except accepting those life spans as genuine. If you do not, cuts no ice with me.

[One could add that its human pretentions of being valid history aren't bad either.]

Shane Wilson
4 oct. 2016
There demonstrably was no global flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Then demonstare that!

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl

No extreme genetic bottle-necking of all life on earth, as would be expected from a world-wide flood in human history.

Despite what Hovind claims, the various geologic layers are not formed by a massive flood. We have erosion, uplift, and other markers in between them.

The fact that numerous cultures around the globe were around during the supposed flood and never got wiped out.

And this isn't even getting into the fact that the ship wouldn't be able to support that much life within it, nor would it be seaworthy. Then throw in the fact that it would have killed pretty much all sealife on earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
« No extreme genetic bottle-necking of all life on earth, as would be expected from a world-wide flood in human history. »

How about the demise of elephant relatives like mammoths ? Or the radical if such lowering of T Rex and Bronto population ?

« Despite what Hovind claims, the various geologic layers are not formed by a massive flood. »

Despite what you seem to claim, we don’t get palaeontological layers from more than one supposed era per dig down. We don’t get Permian under Triassic, despite them being side by side in Karoo. OK, we do get trilobites under elasmosaurs, but that would be because of how they live in sea (example : Napoleon Basin [see below]).

« We have erosion, uplift, and other markers in between them. »

You seem to suppose that Flood means precisely ONE gush of water and no more. The kind of streams under water which could deposit such layers also could erode things. And tectonic plates seem to have been shifting, which could account for uplift.

« The fact that numerous cultures around the globe were around during the supposed flood and never got wiped out. »

OK, Flood was 2957 BC. Which culture do you consider as having been around back then, and how do we know it is not a five hundred to thousand years later ?

« And this isn't even getting into the fact that the ship wouldn't be able to support that much life within it »

If hares and rabbits come from one pair aboard Ark, mice (of all chromosomal races), rats and shrews again from one pair and if the one pair of sauropods (probably smaller variety than bronto), the one pair of whatever it is T Rex and Allosaurus belong to, and so on, were young babies when on board Ark, and a few more things like that, that problem is solved.

By the way, it is not a ship, it is a box (that is what ark means) and was not able to navigate, since God was doing the navigation by providence.

« nor would it be seaworthy. »

If it had been navigating against waves and currents instead of floating with them, see previous answer.

« Then throw in the fact that it would have killed pretty much all sealife on earth. »

Apart from what was caught in mud, no. Like an elasmosaur in Napoleon Basin* or a whale or two in the Alps.

I suppose you mean things like salinity, but a greater salinity of seas would have developed over the millennia since the Flood.

[I meant Bonaparte Basin, but was misled by association with a Swedish name for millefeuille]

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
How about the demise of elephant relatives like mammoths ? Or the radical if such lowering of T Rex and Bronto population

Your comment has nothing at all to do with genetic bottlenecking.

In any population of organisms you have various genes, which is the genetic diversity (different genes). When you reduce populations to small numbers, you are removing many of the genes entirely from the genepool. This creates a genetic bottleneck, which we can actually see in the DNA. The cheetah suffers from a fairly bad bottleneck, thought. And this is thought to be from an event taking them to under a thousand, thousands of years ago. If Noah's flood were real, nearly every life form on earth should be suffering from even worse bottlenecking than the cheetah.

[I didn't bother to answer, but my point could have been that might have been one part of the case with, if not mammoths, that could be later in ice age, at least T Rex and Bronto : at least if Cheetahs are really endangered due to bottlenecking.]

You seem to suppose that Flood means precisely ONE gush of water and no more. The kind of streams under water which could deposit such layers also could erode things. And tectonic plates seem to have been shifting, which could account for uplift.

Floods give very distinctive markers in the layers, the layers we have aren't all flood layers.Hell, in many we can find footprints and such, which you don't get when you have a flood layer.

OK, Flood was 2957 BC. Which culture do you consider as having been around back then, and how do we know it is not a five hundred to thousand years later

The Egyptians for one. In Brazil, we have Brazilian pyramids which predate the flood (3000 BCE), something that wouldn't have survived the flood. In fact, the Native Americans were living in North America before and after the supposed flood ever happened. Yet, they weren't wiped out.

If hares and rabbits come from one pair aboard Ark, mice (of all chromosomal races), rats and shrews again from one pair and if the one pair of sauropods (probably smaller variety than bronto), the one pair of whatever it is T Rex and Allosaurus belong to, and so on, were young babies when on board Ark, and a few more things like that, that problem is solved.

First, genetics doesn't support this at all, and you still have issues with them not fitting. Not to mention no good ventilation, which means everyone dies from CO2 poisoning or Methane poisoning, or even better, a giant explosion from the methane once a lamp is lit.

By the way, it is not a ship, it is a box (that is what ark means) and was not able to navigate, since God was doing the navigation by providence.

And yet it still wouldn't be sea worthy in a rough sea, especially not with the debris floating around which would easily puncture the hull.

I suppose you mean things like salinity, but a greater salinity of seas would have developed over the millennia since the Flood.

The salinity change would have killed sea life. The stuff in the oceans would have died from the rapid decrease in salinity, and the fresh water life would have died from the rapid increase. Not to mention the extreme temperature and pressure changes, the ph change, and lots of other issues that would kill everything.

And then of course, the coal reefs would also have died.

There is a reason nobody in their right mind who knows anything about science accepts the flood myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Passing on Cheetahs for now.

"Floods give very distinctive markers in the layers, the layers we have aren't all flood layers.Hell, in many we can find footprints and such, which you don't get when you have a flood layer."

Key word "a" Flood layer. The Flood of Noah would have made more than one, if sufficiently turmoiled.

"The Egyptians for one."

According to their King Lists or according to C14?

"In Brazil, we have Brazilian pyramids which predate the flood (3000 BCE), something that wouldn't have survived the flood."

C14 I presume.

"In fact, the Native Americans were living in North America before and after the supposed flood ever happened. Yet, they weren't wiped out."

And once again, just C14.

In all these and any similar cases, the key factor is mostly only C14, occasionally also a non-Hebrew historiography.

The latter worked a bit like when Saxo divided up Frodo Haddingson the Peaceking, into Frodo I Haddingson and Frodo II of the Peace. In the sequels of each, you find kings of different parts of Denmark, but Saxo wants to give Denmark the appearance of having an old unity.

So dynasties that were really parallel come to be listed as if serial.

The key to the C14 problem is simply the buildup of C14 in athmosphere.

"First, genetics doesn't support this at all, and you still have issues with them not fitting."

As far as I know, genetics do support hares and rabbits having common ancestry, since there seems to be an intermediate species, interfertile with both.

As to not all fitting, that depends on how many couples there were, which depends on how many kinds. Which reduces to previous question.

"Not to mention no good ventilation, which means everyone dies from CO2 poisoning or Methane poisoning, or even better, a giant explosion from the methane once a lamp is lit."

Except if there was lots of room in the Ark, which a feasability study by Woodmorappe suggests there was, this would not be the case.

"And yet it still wouldn't be sea worthy in a rough sea, especially not with the debris floating around which would easily puncture the hull."

You are still treating it as if it were a ship, navigating in any other direction than what was floating around. It was in fact - floating around.

"The salinity change would have killed sea life."

If it had happened fast enough during Flood, rather than slower after Flood.

"The stuff in the oceans would have died from the rapid decrease in salinity, and the fresh water life would have died from the rapid increase."

Or both survived as salinity increased slowly in seas but not in rivers and lakes.

"Not to mention the extreme temperature and pressure changes, the ph change, and lots of other issues that would kill everything."

In some places they did. Fortunately, restricted ones.

"And then of course, the coal reefs would also have died."

The present coral reefs have an age which has been calculated by YECs as exactly fitting the Flood.

"There is a reason nobody in their right mind who knows anything about science accepts the flood myth."

There is a reason why one learns to be on guard against rhetoric in schools.

Now back to genetic bottleneck of Cheetah.

I don't think God is a bungler and I do think the bottleneck of the CHeetahs is more recent than Flood - or that Flood struck Cheetas worse than some other critters.

And just maybe - as I was suggesting - struck dinos of diverse kinds so badly they never fully recovered. Though obviously, I don't believe there was a dinosaur world I believe the dinos lived about the areas we find them in - and other critters in other areas.

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl
You do realize that Carbon 14 dating is highly accurate when used correctly right? And we can use additional methods to double check, such as dendrochronology.

And the rates at which YECs pretend the corals grew doesn't match up to the actual evidence at all. Your side is so dishonest when it comes to science because it attempts to force everything into your little preconceived notions rather than follow the evidence where it leads.

You still don't get it, you don't get the genetic diversity that we see today from a handful of animals just a few thousand years ago, it doesn't work, period. Genetics destroys your little flood myth.

And your little hand waving on "the flood did it in magical ways" is just ridiculous. People like you should be ashamed for being such a drag on society.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You do realize that Carbon 14 dating is highly accurate when used correctly right?"

That is one claim I have no reason to believe in, unless correctly means either:

  • a) limited to last 2500 years, when doublechecking with indubitable history is an option (carbon date Persepolis, for instance, it only stood for a short time, and therefore its carbon dates can be matched with a rather narrow historic frame); or

  • b) recalibrated with a drastically rising C14 content and even then, due to diverse options on how "curved" the rise was, only as a relative chronology.


Creation vs. Evolution : What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/what-some-of-you-are-thinking-ce-que.html


"And we can use additional methods to double check, such as dendrochronology."

History of last 2500 years is sufficiently well documented to be a real double check, dendrochronology is not. If not in all series, at least all except Californian Red Wood ones, there are bottlenecks and loose matching allowed.

How often a Californian Redwood tree got rings in the past is a matter we could be wiser about if we knew exactly how climate had been there. I have seen opposed claims, and obviously have more confidence in the creationist one. When it comes to other series, I did some googling myself, but lost the reference.

"And the rates at which YECs pretend the corals grew doesn't match up to the actual evidence at all."

Ah, really?

"Your side is so dishonest when it comes to science because it attempts to force everything into your little preconceived notions rather than follow the evidence where it leads."

Your side has a preconceived notion that evolution from microbe to man happened, which, if true, would have taken extremely long time.

"You still don't get it, you don't get the genetic diversity that we see today from a handful of animals just a few thousand years ago, it doesn't work, period. Genetics destroys your little flood myth."

Depends on how well chosen the matches are and how recent the mutations we see.

"And your little hand waving on "the flood did it in magical ways" is just ridiculous."

I did not say "in magical ways". I said that the Flood event overall was more events than just one flooding event.

"People like you should be ashamed for being such a drag on society."

Some of you seem to want to really rub it in by keeping a creationist blogger unprinted and unpaid for his writing. Not saying specifically you, saying some of you, meaning some on the evolutionist side.

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Try using a scientific source.

On dendrochronology, yes a tree can grow more than one ring, or even no rings in a year, however these don't tend to be common at all, and on the average they even out. This is why they also have a percentage of error when using it.

Your side has a preconceived notion that evolution from microbe to man happened, which, if true, would have taken extremely long time.

It isn't a preconveived notion, it is where the evidence clearly points.

You have a single book of debunked myths, we have science which is continually checked, and rechecked for accuracy.

Depends on how well chosen the matches are and how recent the mutations we see.

Wrong, because you still aren't getting the genetic diversity in such a few specimines, even worse when you try to go to "kind" rather than species.

And we can track mutation rates.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Try using a scientific source."

For what specific thing?

"On dendrochronology, yes a tree can grow more than one ring, or even no rings in a year, however these don't tend to be common at all, and on the average they even out. This is why they also have a percentage of error when using it."

I wonder if all Creation Scientists would agree on that one ... after seeing a scientific source about the overlap of two series, sorry, lost reference, and seeing how the matches are loose, I do not.

"It isn't a preconveived notion, it is where the evidence clearly points."

According to your preconcieved notion about where the evidence clearly points.

"You have a single book of debunked myths"

Oh, are you referring to the Bible as that? Then it is clear that your idea of where the evidence clearly points is rather worthless.

I have a bit "more" than that, at least humanly speaking as to arguments a bit more. But you wouldn't like to hear about that, would you?

It could spoil your preconceived notions.

"we have science which is continually checked, and rechecked for accuracy."

On nearly every corner where it can be checked. A few exceptions : you are not checking the historic evidence of the Bible for details of chronology or geology which could become clearer in that light, even to you, as they are to me.

And you are not checking the logical points about the validity of your argumentations brought up by philosophers and creationists.

But on most other corners, where you can check, you do.

Trying to talk down my confidence was not a very wise choice for debate, especially if you are only here by yourself and not part of a group (I saw that other evolutionist claiming to be engaged in trying to "deprogram" me, which would imply some collective effort : in that case, trying to talk down my confidence would perhaps be last resort for your group, and sorry if you are not part of such a thing).

"Wrong, because you still aren't getting the genetic diversity in such a few specimines, even worse when you try to go to "kind" rather than species."

Not really, no. Suppose the ancestor of horses and donkeys was some kind of mulish thing, except not a hybrid like the mule, that would mean the variation narrowed down to horse and down to donkey. Suppose further that the couple on the Ark had as much variation between them as a horse and a donkey, except for not being such. And use the same idea for other kinds.

"And we can track mutation rates."

Usually by tracking a common ancestor who isn't necessarily such and by taking the time when that individual lived by misdating, landing you with too slow a "mutation rate". Tell me more?

Updates:
Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl So your entire argument is "Creation scientists disagree with you" even though they are dishonest from the get go.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
So your entire argument is Creation Scientists are dishonest "from the get go" whatever that phrase means, even if they disagree with you?

Spoof. But perhaps apt even so about your attitude. Even if first and foremost a spoof on what you just said.

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes they are dishonest because they have their conclusions before they even start. This is the opposite of how actual science works.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, you have finally realised that your evolutionist scientists are dishonest etc. ? [spoof - can we go back to debating actual ARGUMENTS as opposed to throwing apple pies at each other's sceince teams?]

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Scientists follow the evidence where it leads.

Creationists try to squeeze everything to fit the Bible. They even have little papers they sign that say they must fit everything into the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If one believes the Bible is evidence, following the Bible is part of following evidence where it leads.

YOU very clearly try to fit everything into millions and billions of years and man being a late comer on Earth, itself a late comer in universe and civilised man a late comer among men.

Civilisation depending ultiamtely on barbarous Cro Magnons, man depending ultimately on somewhat more clever apes who got some anatomical advantages about how to show it, life depending ultimately on mindless chemicals, these ultimately on Big Bang.

Instead of saying "that is where the evidence leads, and the Creationists aren't doing that", how about arguing about the evidence, rather than belittling opposite team?

We were arguing facts pertinent to possibility of Flood of Noah and its ramifications or not. Now you are "arguing" about the team I belong to. It's like starting to actually play rugby and then go back and start singing a taka about how bad the opposite team is, instead of continuing the match. I don't think New Zealand All Blacks ever did that!

Shane Wilson
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Then circular reasoning is your answer.

And no, I'm not trying to fit everything into billions of years, the evidence is pretty damn clear that the billions of years happened.

If you aren't dishonest, like yourself and other creationists, then an honest look at the evidence about Noah's flood shows that it is a myth. Hands down.

Genetics, physics, archaeology, and pretty much every other area of science that can test this debunks the claim. The only way it works is with "magic" and once you say "magic did it" then you lose absolutely all credibility in having a rational conversation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Then circular reasoning is your answer."

Then you don't know what the fallacies circular proof and circular definition are.

"And no, I'm not trying to fit everything into billions of years, the evidence is pretty damn clear that the billions of years happened."

N a m e l y ...?

"If you aren't dishonest, like yourself and other creationists, then an honest look at the evidence about Noah's flood shows that it is a myth."

What's dishonest about looking at Flood myths as memories of the Flood?

What exactly does the word "myth" imply to you, as per definition?

"Genetics, physics, archaeology, and pretty much every other area of science that can test this debunks the claim."

We were discussing that and you retreated ...

"The only way it works is with "magic" and once you say "magic did it" then you lose absolutely all credibility in having a rational conversation."

Oh, only ATHEISTS are rational in your view. Then you are trying to fit everything into a certain scenario I just outlined, and which was not limited to just the timescale you commented on.

V e r y funny too, that an Atheist should be talking about reason ... on your view, what exactly is the ontology of reason?

(If you had cared about circular definition as a real fallacy, you might detect one where "scientists follow the real evidence, creationists aren't scientist because they don't do so, they don't do so because the scientists say so, and among the scientists - per definition, namely yours - noone is a creationist").

No more updates here
since Shane Wilson chose to accept the challenge of N a m e l y ? which brings about a newer discussion, upcoming post.